Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/77

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.


p, 71 f.), the Ḥaṭeph is necessary[1] when, in a strengthened medial consonant with Še (consequently not in cases like וַיְהִי, &c.), preceded by a Pathaḥ, the sign of the strengthening (Dageš forte) has fallen away, e.g. הַֽלֲלוּ (but ed. Mant. and Ginsb. הַלְלוּ praise ye! וַתְּאַֽלֲצֵהוּ Ju 1616; no less universally, where after a consonant with Še the same consonant follows (to separate them more sharply, and hence with a Metheg always preceding), e.g. סוֹרֲרִים ψ 689; קִֽלֲלָֽתְךָ (ed. Mant. and Ginsb. קִלְל׳ Gn 2713 (but not without exceptions, e.g. חִקְקֵי־ Ju 515, Is 101; צִלְלֵי Jer 64, and so always הִנְנִי behold me, הִנְנוּ behold us; on כְ before the suffix ךָ, see §20b); also in certain forms under Kaph and Rêš after a long vowel and before the tone, e.g. תֹּֽאכֲלֶ֫נָּה Gn 317; בָּֽרֲכִי ψ 1031; וַתְּשָֽׁרֲתֵ֫הוּ 1 K 14 (but וְיִתְבָּ֫רְכוּ ψ 7217, cf. Jer 42, 1 Ch 2920, because the tone is thrown back on to the ā. After ē Še remains even before the tone, as בֵּֽרְכוּ &c.; but before Maqqef אֵֽלֲכָה־נָּא Baer Ex 418, 2 S 157 Jer 4015, but ed. Mant., Jabl., Ginsb. אֵֽלְ׳)[2]; (b) under initial sibilants after וּ copulative, e.g. וּֽזֲהַב Gn 212; cf. Jer 4820; וּֽסֲחַר Is 4514; וּֽשֲׂדֵה Lv 2534; וּֽשֲׁקָה Gn 2726; וּֽשֲׁמָע Nu 2318, Is 3717, Dn 918, cf. Ju 512, 1 K 1421, 2 K 917, Jb 141, Ec 97—to emphasize the vocal character of the Še. For the same reason under the emphatic ט in הֽוּטֲלוּ Jer 2228; cf. Jb 3325; after Qôph in וּֽקֲדָרְתִּי (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Jabl., Ginsb. וּקְ׳) Ez 2341; וּֽקֲרָב־ ψ 5522; cf. Jer. 329; under Rêš in אֵֽרֲדָה (ed. Mant. אֵֽרְ׳). Gn 1821; וּֽרֲעֵם ψ 289; even under ת Eze 2621[3]; under ב Est 28; וּבֵֽרֲכֶךָּ so Jabl., Ginsb., but ed. Mant. וּבֵֽרְ׳ Dt 2413; (c) under sonants, sibilants or Qôph after ĭ, e.g. יִֽצֲחַק Gn 216, cf. 3038 and Ez 2128 (under ק); אִֽמֲרוֹת ψ 127; הֲתִֽמֲלֹךְ Jer 2215; כִֽנֲרוֹת Jos 112; בִּֽסֲבָךְ־ ψ 745, —for the same reason as the cases under b[4]; according to Baer also in שִֽׁפֲמוֹת 1 S 3028; יִֽפְגָֽשֲׁךָ Gn 3218 after ŏ (cf. §9v), as well as after a in הַֽקֲשִׁיבָה Dn 919; הַֽבֲרָכָה Gn 2738; הַֽמֲצֹרָעִים 2 K 78.

 [10hB. The Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ is less restricted to the gutturals than the first two, and stands more frequently for a simple Šewâ mobile when an original O-sound requires to be partly preserved, e.g. at the beginning, in רֳאִי (ground-form rŏʾy) vision (cf. §93z); כֳּנַנְיָהוּ 2 Ch 3112, &c., Qe (Keeth. כונ״); עַמֳּנִיּוֹת Ammonitish women, 1 K 111 (sing. עַמּוֹנִית); יִרְדֳּפֶ֑ךָ for the usual יִרְדְּפֶ֑ךָ Ez 356, from יִרְדֹּף; תִקֳּבֶ֫נּוּ Nu 2325, Jer 3133, and elsewhere before suffixes, cf. §60a; קָדְקֳדוֹ his pate (from קָדְקֹד) ψ 717, &c.; אֶשְׁקֳטָה Is 184 Qe. Further, like ־ֲ, it stands under consonants, which ought to have Dageš forte, as in לֻֽקֳחָה (for לֻקְּחָה) Gn 223. In this example, as in וּֽסֳעָ֫דְה 1 K 137; וּֽסֳאָה 2 K 718; and וּֽצֳעָ֫קִי Jer 2220, the Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ is no doubt due to the influence of the

  1. See Delitzsch, ‘Bemerkungen über masoretisch treue Darstellung des alttestam. Textes,’ in the Ztschr. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, vol. xxiv. 1863, p. 409 ff.
  2. On the uncertainty of the MSS. in some cases which come under a, see Minḥat shay (the Masoretic comm. in ed. Mant.) on Gn 123 and Ju 76.
  3. Critical annotation: וּֽתֲבֻֿקְשִׁׄי in Eze 2621 in Aleppo codex.—A. E. A.
  4. Ben-Asher requires ־ֲ for ־ְ (even for Šewâ quiescens) generally before a guttural or ר; hence Baer reads in 2 S 155 בִּֽקַרָב־, ψ 187 אֶֽקֲרָא; ψ 4915 לִֽשֲׁאוֹל; ψ 655 תִּֽבֲחַר; ψ 6824 תִּֽמֲחַץ; Pr 3017 תִּֽלֲעַג; Jb 2925 אֶֽבֲחַר; cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, 12:7, note.